Due date: Friday 12 September, via e-mail before lecture
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
What is the purpose of state-of-nature reasoning? Drawing on either Hobbes and Rousseau, discuss the purpose of engaging in state-of-nature thought experiments. What do Hobbes or Rousseau hope to gain by such speculation? Critically assess their arguments: would the "state of nature" be like Hobbes (or Rousseau) describes it? Would a more accurate description of the state of nature have different political implications? For a more detailed description of this essay topic, see here.
What are Rousseau’s objections to Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature and the transition to a social state? Are these good objections? How would Hobbes respond to Rousseau? Who has the better argument? For a more detailed description of this essay topic, see here.
Do state-of-nature thought experiments (choose either Hobbes or Rousseau’s ideas about the state of nature) have any implications for our understanding of international relations? Does the actual conduct of international relations support or undermine any particular understanding of the state of nature (Rousseau or Hobbes)? For a more detailed description of this essay topic, see here.
For Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), writing against the backdrop of the English Civil War, the question of proper governance was paramount. As a monarchist sympathiser, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Leviathan concludes that an absolute sovereign is the best form of government. What was revolutionary was his methodology, where the explicit aim was to stipulate fundamental principles about human behaviour and see where they led. As opposed to previous political theorists who appealed to divine covenant or utopian philosopher-kings, this mechanistic view of humamity was a prescient insight, and threatened some of the most cherished institutional myths about human nature.
Hobbes was a prodigious intellect, being admitted to Oxford at age 14 and becoming a classicist. He published the first english translation of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which undoubtedly would have exposed him to an uncomprimising view of nation-states which would have mirrored contempory Europe. But it was Euclid's Elements of Geometry which most impressed Hobbes. The ability of geometry to move with logical precision from postulate to conclusion seemed irresistable, and even induced a brief flirtation with mathematics in which Hobbes clumisily convinced himself that he had squared the circle, an impossible task.
This geometric reasoning was what Hobbes aspired to apply to society. He reasoned that if he could postulate a strong hypothesis about human nature, and follow it ineluctably through to its conclusions, then the resultant system of governance would be logically unassailable. Clearly, he failed in this aim, but the application of the method of theoretical science to society remains a crowning achievement.
Summarised from: Philip Ball, Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another (2004), 7-37.
While Hobbes traveled throughout European countries he came to wonder why people allowed themselves to be ruled. In his most famous work, The Leviathan, published in 1651, he argued that human beings are innately wicked and selfish This is a common misinterpretation of Hobbes - xmarquez Sep 5, 2008 and could not be trusted to govern or make their own decisions Again, a misinterpretation of Hobbes - xmarquez Sep 5, 2008. And like people, he believed states were also naturally self interested -- the epitome of a realist position. like I said in lecture, I am officially banning the word "realist" unless it is given some convincing justification - xmarquez Sep 5, 2008 Despite this very realist assertion, Hobbes did hope that a group of representatives that spoke on behalf of the 'common people' would prevent the king from being entirely cruel and unfair This is not really the argument of the Leviathan - xmarquez Sep 5, 2008. In fact it's from Hobbes's work that the phrase 'voice of the people' comes from. No, the phrase was common in Roman rhetoric: vox populi suprema lex, for example - xmarquez Sep 5, 2008
Chapter 13:
• Nature has made men relatively equal in terms of body and mind.
• Every man is also equally convinced that they are wiser than other men
• Men are primarily concerned with their own conservation, and they will subdue those who present a threat to this. The condition of man is war of everyone against everyone.
There are three main causes of quarrel and incline men to war:
Competition
These men seek their own gain through violence and dominance
Diffidence
These seek safety and their own defense
Glory
These are concerned with their reputation
Justice and injustice are not natural parts of the body or the mind; they are used to relate to other men in society.
There are also certain qualities that incline men to peace:
• The fear of death
• The desire for those things which allow a comfortable life
Chapter 14:
The right of nature is the right man has to preserve his own life. A law of nature is a rule by which man is not allowed to do things contrary to these rights of nature.
The first law of nature:
• To seek peace and follow it
Second law:
• Defend ourselves by all means necessary
All men should pursue peace, and use war when necessary to obtain it.
A contract is the transferring of right and can be signed expressively with words or by inference.
Covenants may be completed (performed) or forgiven (dissolved and retransferring of right)
Chapter 17:
It is not natural for men to work together to achieve a common good. If there is no higher power put in place, men will constantly be in a war-like state, relying on their strength to enforce contracts. A commonwealth must be enacted to defend from foreign invasion, injuries from one another, and secure a peaceful life.
The soverign power of control over the commonwealth may be obtained by force (commonwealth of acquisition) or voluntary submission (political commonwealth).
Chapter 18:
A political commonwealth (commonwealth of institution) is formed by a covenant between men subjecting themselves to the will of one (or a select few) man. The purpose of this institution is the peace and defense of the community.
Chapter 21:
A freeman is he who is not restricted from doing those things he is capable of doing. The liberty of a subject lies in those things the sovereign of the commonwealth allows them to do.
A man cannot be forced to confess a crime, as a man is not obliged to accuse himself by any covenant.
Why is the state of nature a state of war in Hobbes?
The state of nature according to Hobbes is a ruthless state of war.
The lack of security in a state of nature is caused by everyone’s equal ability to kill and this leads to a state of war. Hobbes argues that there is no difference between a state of nature and a state of war because in order to survive in a state of nature, every one must be prepared to fight. Humans in Hobbes’ state of war are equally vulnerable and cannot be sure of victory, so they resort to pre-emptive strike attacks. In such a state of war, I am continually under threat and in order to survive, I may kill someone before they have an opportunity to kill me. For the purpose of my argument I am assuming people are equal rational egoists. They act in self-interest for the purpose of self-preservation. This behavior combined with conflicting desires (survival) inevitably leads to fighting and competition because of a lack of trust in one another. This mutual insecurity reinforces Hobbes’ view that life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (ch. 13).
The concept of the ‘State of Nature’, is to be contrasted by the civil state according to Hobbes. The State of Nature is defined as the most basic and pure of human interaction Unclear -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. Civil states act according to laws issued by a sovereign in a social contract with the people The contract is not with the people - that is a Lockean idea -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. In contrast a State of nature consists of separate entities, acting autonomously as individual sovereigns. Acting autonomously, people are free to do what they want This is not quite right, or at least is misleading - the important point is that they have a right to everything -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. Humans are self-interested beings and therefore every action they take is purely for themselves Not quite what Hobbes says; yes, human beings aim at some good to themselves, but the "purely" does not follow -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. In order to survive in a place when each person is free to do what they like means people need to be prepared to fight each other for their own survival. In a situation where each person is competing for their own equal self-interest, these conflict of interest mean a constant state of war between each other. THis could be better integrated with the previous paragraph, since it repeats some information -
Is a prisoner's dilemma game a good model for Hobbes' state of nature? What does the prisoner's dilemma tell us (or fail to tell us) about the state of nature and its solution?
Similarities between the traditional prisoners dilemma and the state of nature as Hobbes describes it exist, and as such, the dilemma can be a helpful model to explain Hobbes’ state of nature.
At first it is difficult to understand why men, who naturally “seek peace and follow it” (chapter 14) are in this miserable condition of constant war (the "state of nature").
The prisoners dilemma results as follows. In the state of nature, people have an equal ability to to kill: the “weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (chapter 13), and “every man has a right to every thing,” including an equal desire (and right) to self defence, even to the point that such a right may impinge upon another's right to live. In instances where the right of one person to live may potentially impinge upon the rights of another, or where no incentives to refrain from doing so exist, the prisoners dilemma results.
A person will attack another first, preemptively, because they cannot trust another person not to attack, and fear that they will attack. There is no incentive not to betray on either side - and thus both are wary of the potential of the other to strike first. Peaceful relationships are therefore very difficult to establish.
The traditional prisoners dilemma is here distinguished - as under a traditional model, repeated interactions between people eventually lead to cooperation and trusting relationships. In Hobbes' state of nature, the stakes of wrongfully trusting are so high (death) that repeated interaction cannot occur - indeed, interaction is unlikely to occur in the first place.. Trust can only be established where a high force (or a sovereign) alters the benefits that would have normally been the outcome of a betrayal. In such a situation, trust can exist because the sovereign wields the power of the collective - and it is in an individual's interest to cooperate - and know moreover that it is in other people's interests to do the same.
Are Hobbes' assumptions about the state of nature plausible?
It doesn't seem to address the flipside of the prisoners dilemma, in that people attack first before other people attack, but people don't attack first in order not to provoke an attack. If humans have a natural desire for peace then surely they won't desire increasing the chance of an attack Assume there is some error in some people's calculations; will some people attack because they sense a provocation, even if the others don't attack? -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. - This will certainly be the case at times, but not all the time. If the state of nature is all about what is best for self-preservation, surely acting upon a perceived provocation decreases this immensely in the face of potential death?' Even if the act is say, going and trying to kill them in their sleep to maximise the chance of success, there is still the very real chance of failure. If the possibility of death clearly exists, then taking that possibility seems contrary to the reasoning behind the state of nature where self-preservation is paramount.
You could however say that going up a ladder to fix your leaky roof aids self-preservation (from the rain and cold for many seasons) despite the chance that you may fall; it weighs up two issues of self-preservation and takes the one with the maximum benefit. This could then be seen as analogous to how killing a man for his cows aids self-preservation (milk for many seasons, meat, leather) despite the risk of failing and being killed yourself. I think in terms of the provocation and perception, it comes down to what your response to the possibility of being killed is? If you attack first on the possibility of being killed, you then increase the possibility of being killed in that attack (and having become the aggressor, your perception of provocation becomes reality). If you wait, only that first possibility of being killed exists. This is why people for the most part do not attack first, but rather retaliate, same on an international scale. Then again, I guess you could say that the person who attacked on perceived provocation was only retaliating. Then it's a matter of how you retaliate. You could simply leave or wait rather than confront. Rather than making perceived aggression reality by an aggressive response, you can wait in defense or leave. If nothing happens then it is just perception. I think it's a little more than Kill or be killed, A(ttack)/Not A, and this is how things empirically play out.
You can suspect that your roof leaks (sense a provocation), but you wouldn't act on it unless its dripping on you (attacking you, expressly threatening, etc). Only then do you take that terrible risk of climbing a ladder (attacking/killing). To pre-emptively re-tile your roof is great and industrious and so on, but if it actually didn't need fixing you haven't actually gained anything bar the risks associated with pursuing that action. Rather, you've lost something (money/your arm) that would have been spent on something actually conductive to your self-preservation like food because you acted pre-emptively rather than assessing the situation. I guess this all assumes rationality, which as Hobbes says is different in the state of nature. This however could be seen as saying that in special circumstances 1+1=3. You can't argue with it because you're not in those special circumstances and are using rationality from a state where 1+1=2. If you were in the circumstances where 1+1=3 it'd make sense to you. I don't really like this math analogy, but I think it makes the point.
All these arguments do seem to end up rather circular which is always a bad sign, yet always seems to happen.
If as Hobbes claims the natural desire for peace is our primary motivation (and hence why we would desire a sovereign to invest in), the possession of the state of distrust is then secondary and subordinate (chp14). The fact that we desire a sovereign (peace) surely negates our inherent natural distrust for the most part. If as in a state of nature we all simply attacked pre-emptively it doesn't seem possible that a sovereign could ever emerge. You could take it from that other angle that we never leave the state of nature and that the sovereign is simply a part of it, Hobbes is making distinctions where there are none. If you take Self-Preservation=State of Nature as true, then I think that we are never out of a state of nature. The creation of a sovereign isn't the removal of the state of nature but merely a case of 'I will pursue this option for the time being as it is in my best interests of self-preservation'. As long as it does work you follow it,
Hobbes' assumptions are of course based on the idea that our general suspicions of one another lead to distrust and to kill each other which empirically does not appear to be true. Perhaps though, this is because we are already under a sovereign Precisely Hobbes' point -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. Even so, the possession of distrust and an overarching desire for self-preservation I do not think lead people immediately or inevitably to the State of Nature he envisions Without a sovereign? Consider something like Somalia, or Iraq after the invasion-
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. One cannot use a looted TV without the vast network of other people creating content, managing TV networks, providing electricity, and so on. It would suggest in a state of nature that we would kill somebody for a TV or steal one despite not being able to use it. This would suggest during a state of nature people are anticipating the point where they are no longer in a state of nature. Again this could come back to 'always being in a state of nature'.
The point is not that everyone has these passions; but what if enough people do? Remember, also, that what is rational in the state of nature is not rational in the civil state -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. In this case the state of nature seems self resolving: if there are enough people willing and wanting to kill each other to gain some perceived advantage and reduce somewhere such as Somalia to a 'State of Nature', eventually there won't be, having killed each other...
I think the underlying assumptions that complicate the viability of state of nature are as follows:
- All People are rational - If they aren't, they're hardly going to conform to the state of natures theories let alone those of a civil state
- All People act in the same way under the same conditions, have the same desires
- All People are equally killable/capable of being killed. Clearly not. The weakest man probably couldn't strangle the strongest even in his sleep due to his huge neck muscles getting in the way, or stab him with enough force or whatever. Even if it's poison different people will have different reactions, and so on.
Is a sovereign authority the only possible solution to the Hobbessian dilemma?
In Hobbes' social contract, the sovereign is the only way to have security. For Hobbes, the sovereign is the most intelligent idea made by men to live in society. The creation of the sovereign is the only way to escape from the State of Nature. He will be the only capable authority to inculcate law and order in the society because it is the result of a common agreement. Everyone rational will follow the Sovereign's law because they are afraid of violent death (under Hobbesian analysis). When Hobbes wrote the Leviathan: England did not have a real authority, there was civil war; nobody, in Hobbes perspective, could stop the Parliament. In contrast, France under Louis XIV was an absolute sovereign. No one questioned his authority and for Hobbes that is better than no authority at all. He despises anarchy. What about repeated interactions leading to spontaneous social order? WHy is this not a solution to the state of nature? -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm
Cooperation between people would not rationally occur because fear and distrust would prevent it. Death (or the fear of it) prevents future cooperation.
Why is morality impossible in the state of nature?
The state of nature is a state of war - 'every man is against every man'(Chapter XIII). Hobbes believes that there can be no morality in a state of nature because there is ‘no common power’. This positivist approach to law means that without a common power (sovereign) no laws are made, without laws there is no injustice.Sure, but what is the reason that Hobbes gives? Look at what he says about the right to everything in the state of nature-
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm How is injustice brought about when there is no common power dispensing justice?
If in the state of nature everybody is equally able to kill anybody else then each person will be looking to gain an advantage over their adversaries, real or imagined. In the act of self-preservation any action is legitimate. For these two reasons there is no such thing as lawful property belonging to an individual, there is only what an individual can retain through force. In the state of nature everyone owns everything. A person will look to build resources so they will be better able to defend themselves or to attack. If everybody is out to do the same thing then all bets are off, anything goes and there is no justice or injustice.
>“…nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” (Chapter XIII)
Compounding the above analysis is Hobbes’ assertion that in a state of nature it is impossible to distinguish between ‘mine and thine’. If there is an inability in a state of nature to separate out individuals possessions from a situation where men only strive to get what they can get, and hold it for as long as they can(Chapter XIII), injustice cannot occur. There was no constructed ‘right’ to it in the first place. This would be different in a system that had a sovereign to dispense justice. How exactly? -
“It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.”
Is Hobbes' right about the non-existence of morality in the state of nature? What assumptions does he make to argue this claim, and are these assumptions plausible?
Because acting in a moral way in a state-of-nature will not benefit you (you will not get what you want) he believes that humans must take rational actions to achieve what they want Acting in a narrowly rational way in the state of nature will also not get you what you want - this is the prisoner's dilemma aspect of the situation, though the main point is right -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. Acting morally will not benefit a person and will lead to betrayal, therefore acting morally is not rational. Because morality isn't rational, in a state of nature morality does not exist and people are not obliged to act morally. For it to be rational to act morally there must be a coercive force that makes it beneficial for people to act morally. Hobbes’ argument is only plausible if we accept his argument for what is rational. If rationality dictated that serving the interests of a majority was more important than serving ones self, then it would be rational for people to act morally even in a state of nature.
Is Hobbes right about the implication: if states in the international system are in a state of nature, then no state has obligations to other states? All is fair in war?
Is it likely that individuals in the state of nature would actually renounce their rights given that everyone is a self interested individual? Why / why not? Would such a society be stable?
Prima facie, it appears that the incentives influencing individuals in the state of nature might preclude them from renouncing their rights to a sovereign. Some of the reasons for this might include:
Individuals are unlikely to renounce their rights if they feel that they can protect themselves better than a sovereign can. A sovereign has the interests of everyone in mind which may mean they harm one person to protect the interests of another. An individual does not have to worry about looking out for the interests of anyone but him(her)self.
Further, people may be unwilling to submit themselves to tyranny without the sovereign first proving himself. However, the sovereign can not prove himself until he is in a place of leadership with everyone submitting to him. We arrive at a catch 22. The sovereign would never make it into power because all would need to submit for the concept of rule to be successful; I will not submit, therefore, the concept fails.
However, it may also be in an individual's best interests to submit. For example, in a war torn state of nature such as Hobbes describes, in which violence is a part of life, very few freedoms and rights are properly able to be exercised regardless. It could in fact be very much in an individuals self interest to subscribe to the protection of a sovereign promising peace and collective action against intruders - and while they may renounce their rights in a sense, a sovereign promises an environment in which other rights previously denied because of the state of nature can be exercised. If individuals are willing to believe a charismatic would-be-sovereign that they will in fact be better off under the rule of the sovereign (and it is not uncharacteristic of human nature to believe and sign up to something that is 'in their best interests', even if it perhaps is not), it is not inconceivable that they might renounce their rights.
It is fair to say that individuals are unlikely to unilaterally and spontaneously agree to renounce their rights - but if some do, and enjoy that (albeit weakened) protection and sense of community, others are likely to slowly join, particularly through networks of family and friendship. The more people that join, the greater the incentives on skeptics to join also. The greatest protection now lies in the community governed by the sovereign, and the weaker outsiders become relative to that community. It becomes in the outsiders best interests, as the party left vulnerable, to become part of the wider, more centrally focussed group.
Is Hobbes' statement that sovereigns exist in a state of nature still applicable to 21st century society?
Not completely. If the modern world were one in which no one power were superior to another, chaos could ensue. States could be viewed as people equally able to kill each other. In contrast to the situation envisaged by Hobbes of equality, States differ significantly in military ability i.e ability to kill. If states are analogous to people and given the limited amount of supreme authority in the international sphere, Hobbesian theory would predict constant war Remember, though, war is not actual battle, but a disposition thereto - see chapter 13 -
xmarquez
xmarquezSep 5, 2008 11:00 pm. The empirical truth is that constant war does not occur due to the various treaties, ideologies and Yankee/Western Hegemony that ensure a more stable world order (if only recently and not to the extent that Hobbes would expect). In other words, normative behaviours now act as a sovereign Unclear -
The concept of comity of nations also enables harmonious (although not always) relations, often without a greater presidency to bind both parties to agreements etc.Unclear - how does this get over the Hobbesian security dilemma? -
Does Christianity (of the kind Erasmus preached) equal a sort of sovereign since norms of conduct are set out?
While Christianity in many ways does attempt to fulfill the functions of a sovereign in terms of maintaining set behaviour, religion in and of itself cannot be as effective as a sovereign in mitigating conflict: One of the main strengths Hobbes notes of a sovereign (assuming that we accept his theory) is the ability to gather together the collective in order to punish bad conduct. The effectiveness of a religion as a sovereign partially depends on the mechanisms of that religion to punish bad conduct.
- Where a religion has no control mechanism to ensure behaviour is regulated, the conduct of a person is therefore regulated only by conscience. The only being to whom a potential offender is accountable is God, and their decision to act or refrain from acting is limited only by the extent to which they believe in afterlife (or karma-type) retribution. While this may be effective for some, for many it is not as human immediate retribution is a more effective deterrent. It is moreover very difficult to find a unified interpretation of religion. This is illustrated well by the differences in the interpretation of Christianity seen between Erasmus and Aquinas. Where Erasmus advocated an absolute ban on conflict - often even in self defence, Aquinas favoured an interpretation that appeared to allow conflict in some instances. Even those who genuinely fear afterlife retribution may not believe that such retribution will come because the circumstances under which they engage in conflict are morally just, or allowable under a different interpretation of Christian ethic.
If all people believed in a unified Erasmian Christianity, it may have the same impact (or better) as might a sovereign under Hobbes' theory at mitigating conflict, but it is a utopian theory and in some ways would make the question a truism. Because it is not a reality, Christianity under the status quo (even the status quo in Erasmus or Hobbes' time) did not, and does not equal a sovereign under Hobbes' rationalisation.
- In a society where the extreme majority of people believe in a single religion, it is arguable that immediate retribution is garnered through societal norms and pressures. Failure to adhere might result in penalties such as societal exclusion - and as such could be a more effective method of accountability. However, this relies on unified beliefs, high uptake, close knit, internalised communities and that the religion preached strict moral and behavioural regulation. It is unclear whether such society would be sustainable in the long term, and it is unclear whether community pressures would be as effective in maintaining behaviour as individual retribution. Societal pressures to adhere to generally common morals exist in many communities but do not preclude those who wish to contravene. Moreover, if one subscribes to Hobbes' portrayal of human nature, outliers might tend to react preemptively in fear of their own safety - as in such a community, prejudice against outsiders would generally tend to be fairly extreme, and outliers might well fear for their own safety.
- Where the church acted as a sovereign in terms of using the collective to enforce physical retribution of those who contravene, they then would literally equal a sort of sovereign - Hobbes would argue that it does not matter if the leader of a religious faction acted as a sovereign in this sense, they still possess the qualities of a sovereign and the benefits that therefore flow. The uptake of the religion would become immaterial if the physical retribution extended beyond believers, as long as the religion was able to effectively control a significant portion of the collective to enforce conduct. However, this type of society falls outside the scope of this question - as Christianity itself is not acting as a sovereign - humans believing in Christianity are.
Can it be argued that Hobbes is always a realist, or are there aspects of his argument that go against typical realism?
Hobbes can be justified as a realist because he always thinks about rationality before doing something in the political or social sphere. Thinking rationally unclear - is this characteristic of realism? What is being said here? - xmarquez Oct 3, 2008 thinks about the issue rather then jumping to a conclusion that could be unrealistic. However, you could argue that some of Hobbes views are against realism, for example he argues that everyone is equal. Equal to kill, Everyone is strong enough to kill the strongest. How is this realistic? If you are not the strongest you will lose even though the strongest needs to sleep, and even though other people can always temporarily band together to kill the strongest? Why is this not a possibility? - xmarquez Oct 3, 2008. Not very rational at all. And if he thinks everyone equal he then decides that there is always a supreme authority that in the state of nature or civil society that has to be obeyed and you can not leave. Hobbes here has contridicted what he said earlier, this point is more realistic I'm not sure I see the contradiction - xmarquez Oct 3, 2008.
How does Hobbes' position on the law of nature differ from ancient and medieval positions?
As Hobbes describes in chapter 14 the fundamental law of nature for men is "to seek peace and follow it". But in the state of nature, in the "condition of war of every one against every one" the fundamental law of nature not 'applicable'. In chapter 17 Hobbes again says that the laws of nature (justice, mercy, modesty...) "are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like" and therefore argue for a strong covenant to ensure security. Therefore, according to Hobbes a 'peaceful' society has to be constructed with a strong covenant and a strong sovereign who ensure the implication of the covenant. In Ancient and Medieval thoughts society grows 'naturally', it is the law of nature, that men cooperate in their individual interest and form a society.
How does Hobbes differentiate between humans and animals if our natural passions are a sine qua non of both?
To rebel against a sovereign is against the many covenants agreed upon by the public, can a tyrant be deposed (Chpt. XVIII)?
A tyrant cannot be deposed:
If people have already "instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgements of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission."
Having renounced their rights to the sovereign, they cannot, therefore, without his leave, depose him and "return to the confusion of a disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another the" because "they are bound." If they do so, they " take from him that which is his own", which is unjust, and moreover, they break their covenant to that sovereign, which is also unjust. Hobbes does not sympathise with those caught attempting to commit such treasons, labelling the such a person "the author of his own punishment."
One cannot even break with a sovereign in the name of God (ie, swearing loyalty to God, not the sovereign), as Hobbes argues that no covenant can exist with God himself, only with God's representative on earth - the sovereign. Hobbes is scathing of those who use such an argument: "This pretence of covenant with God is so evident a lie, even in the pretenders' own consciences, that it is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile and unmanly disposition."
A man cannot depose a tyrant therefore, nor can he free himself from a tyrants rule: " none of his subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection." This is because when a sovereign makes a covenant with the people, he makes it with them all - and the rules must therefore apply to all people: "Because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest... And whether he be of the congregation or not, and whether his consent be asked or not, he must either submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before; wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever."
Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors. Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.
Gauthier, David (1969). The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press).LinkLibrary Catalog.
Cranston, Maurice William. 1972. Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books. Library catalog.
Place some background information about Rousseau and his time here. Write things that may be helpful for understanding his thought. Please do not cut and paste from other websites. Make sure to acknowledge your sources (with links).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712, was essentially self-taught, never having gone to school for a single day he gained his knowledge through books. His political theory went on to influence the American Founding Fathers and the French revolutionaries. One of his most well-known theories, in the First Discourse, was that progress led humanity astray from primitive simplicity. He felt that it was society itself that made human beings selfish and wicked, believing instead in the natural goodness of man. Essentially, society is not the solution to the problems we have but it is the problem. Much of his work is said to have contradictions in it, for example he believed in social equality but endorsed a view of female subservience. (Damrosc, Rousseau: Restless Genius 2005)
THE STATE OF WAR
• The state is not a physical entity, but rather a moral and spiritual creation
• States are equal and don’t have different rights based on size or power.
• The only legitimate war is that of self-defence. This includes not only physical interests, but also national honour.
• Proofs of ill will between states are breaches of international law to a particular states advantage.
• A war between two powers is a settled intention on both sides to destroy the enemy State. A legitimate war must be declared.
• To make war upon a sovereign power is to attack the social convention and all that is involved in it.
• War is an outrage to humanity
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What are Rousseau's objections to Hobbes' description of the state of nature?
First off, it seems that Hobbes justifies tyranny while Rousseau opposes it Yes, but this is not one of Rousseau's objections to Hobbes' argument - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. Both beginning with equality, Rousseau argues all humans to be equal In what respect? So does HObbes - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. Whether physically or socially, Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, believes that equality results from independence Hobbes also thinks of humans as equal in the SoN because they are independent of one another - he interprets this fact differently, though - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. Our society creates interdependence with one another. A benefit to this loss of independence is the progression of our rationality. Rousseau believes that rationality is traded for independence. Unlike Hobbes who believes that man is best when they are all dependent on one person (Sovereign), Rousseau believes that our original state of nature, that of self-sufficiency and independence, is a good thing. He sees man declining from a state of independence to one where we depend too much on others. Hobbes believes that we must work from our original state of independence to a better state of interdependence with the Sovereign guiding and commanding us. This paragraph does not really provide Rousseau's arguments against Hobbes - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008
Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes’ notion of humans in the state of nature as being “naturally wicked”. He writes in the First Part of his Discourse on Inequality: “Above all, let us not conclude, with Hobbes, that because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue…"
Rousseau thinks that men are neither good nor bad, but generally peaceful (other than in Hobbes) because they have “compassion” (“pitié”) and wouldn’t hurt another human as they have “an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer”.
According to Rousseau humans don’t act rationally in the state of nature, which is also different from Hobbes’ perspective. This is not quite right. It's not that human don't act rationally - that sounds like humans act stupidly. - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008
Rousseau argues that the “people being subject the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it". Here Rousseau states that the people are in fact capable and deserving of self-rule, and argues that man is not naturally adversarial ?- xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. Hobbes and Rousseau, while both granting man natural equality, differ completely on what is morally right and to what extent the empowerment of the individual is important in society. Hobbes holds stability to be of the utmost importance at almost any cost, while for Rousseau, mere stability without liberty is tyrannical, immoral and falls short of accrediting man with the type of government which he has the potential to create. Rousseau's objection to Hobbes' stability without liberty is another point of distinction between these two great theorists. Some of Rousseau's key objections to HObbes' arguments are missing form this account. - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008
What are the roots of conflict for Rousseau?
According to Rousseau, conflict arises with the formation of a civil state Not quite right - yes, conflict is prevalent with the civil state but it arises a little before - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. He discusses the development of conflict as a result of unequal distribution of goods in a civil society combined with corruption (caused by culture, as opposed to nature). By introducing the idea of property into the state, man becomes greedy and corrupt.
Rousseau believed that the transition from the State of Nature to the political state stemmed from a shift in humans' behaviour. The rationality develops at the expense of independence Explain - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008. Rousseau explains that this transition from independence to interdependence causes conflict. When humans seek an advantage (through agriculture or property) it creates inequality. A rise in inequality leads to social competition. To incorporate this social competition into a society humans develop language, economy, power, vanity and respect. This all leads to conflict.Basically true, but it lacks citations and could be explained better - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008'
Why does Rousseau think interdependence is bad? Is he right?
Rousseau believes that interdependence is the root of inequality, injustice and the usurpation of society by the rich in accordance of their interests; which are considered bad. With the emergence of interdependent societal groups, some people are obliged to work more than others for the same wage - the example of the smith vs the peasant is used 'The farmer had a greater need for iron or the iron-worker for wheat.'
Interdependence also induced amour propre as man now compared his inequality relative to others and sought to increase his own status/possessions. The rich/’most miserable’ now set their sights on the ‘goods of others’ a view that led to conflict within and between societies and the formation of laws proposed by the rich. These laws were disguised as protection for the poor against other united societies yet actually enshrined the protection of property, where the rich had more interest in keeping (the poor only liberty). Such laws oppressed the weak and consolidated the strength of the newly powerful. In consequence, the ‘law of property and inequality’ were established as right and ‘natural liberty’ destroyed.
Are there any good things about interdependence, for Rousseau? Can its bad effects be remedied?
'The body politic, in so far as it is only a moral being, is merely a thing of reason.' (Brown 422) Explain
What does Rousseau think is the normal state of international relations? Why?
I will begin with distinguishing the normal state and the natural state. The normal state is defined by the current existence of our state. The natural state will be the state in which we begun. Moving away for the natural state, humans live in a state of turmoil and conflict. This conflict is due to our interdependence; society has caused us to unify. Due to this unification, conflict arises. In our natural state, humans would be completely independent and free of conflict. It is a progression to the current state that has produced dependence and conflict. International relationship is just another step in reducing independence. However, Rousseau believes there are benefits to pursuing international relationships. Your relations with surrounding countries lead to trade; trade leads to specialization and more dependence. International relations develop our rationality at the sacrifice of independence; Rousseau believes this dependence leads to further conflict and death. This is a bit vague and lacking reference to Rousseau's State of War, where he actually explains this. Why is there conflict in international relations? - xmarquez Sep 15, 2008
What is Rousseau's conception of human nature? How does this conception differ from Hobbes', and how does it figure into his theory of society and war? (Taken from Pols/phil 2005 exam)
Rousseau's conception of human nature differs in many ways from Hobbes. Though they both tend to agree that human beings value their lives and wish to avoid death, Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes that this value naturally manifests itself in a natural disposition to conflict. According to Rousseau, while they may be reactive in the sense that they will defend against imminent or immediate danger, human beings are not naturally animals of conflict. Most lack the ability to easily kill other men, and as such are unlikely to be the selfish and dangerous, calculative pre-emptors Hobbes portrays in most instances. The exceptions to the rule are just that - exceptions - and not destructive to the theory as a whole:
"There is in addition another principle, which Hobbes did not notice, and which, having been given to man to soften, in certain circumstances, the ferocity of his self-love [amour propre] or, before the birth of this love, the desire to preserve himself (15), tempers the ardour he has for his well being by an innate repugnance to seeing a creature like himself suffer... I am speaking about pity... By giving tears, nature reveals that she gave the human race the softest hearts."
Rousseau in some ways places the blame for the conflict that has, in reality occurred, on the solution Hobbes has suggested. He argues that society generally is what leads to the ability of man to engage in conflict, for several reasons. First, it encourages men to lose their aversion to killing other men - partially by creating 'us and them' feeling between members of different societies, and training (particularly in army situations?) men to fight for their own society against another. Even if Hobbes were right that a sovereign (in essence, the representative of a society) mitigates internal conflict, it externalises conflict and does nothing to mitigate that.
It further impedes on human beings' natural independence - forcing them to rely on others. Rousseau argues that interdependence generally means dependence due to the structure of society, contrary to people's natural wish for independence. Land ownership in many ways has led to this dependence - creating the boundary between the rich and the poor:
"The first man who, having enclosed off a piece of land, got the idea of saying "this is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, what wars, what murders, what miseries and horrors would someone have spared the human race who, pulling out the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his fellows, "Stop listening to this imposter, You are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to everyone and the earth belongs to no one"
"Since the state of nature is the one in which care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to the preservation of others, this state is consequently the most appropriate to peace and the most acceptable for the human race. He says precisely the opposite, because he made the mistake of allowing into savage man’s care for his own preservation the need to satisfy a multitude of passions which are the work of society and which have made laws necessary."
The rich - with the most to lose - have structured society in their own interests to protect these rights. Rousseau argues that the status quo in many places is therefore unequal and unjust, because it is biased in favour of the rich, and the inequalities that exist within society - (e.g. rich/poor) lead to dependence - as the poor depend on the rich to survive, and in many way the rich also depend on the poor to uphold their way of life. Because it is imperfect, it may mitigate conflict in the short term, but eventually tends to degenerate.
In situations where a 'sovereign' (representation of the people) is corrupt/founded on justice/allows injustice, this independence is further compromised - and humans naturally react against oppression of freedoms. Unlike Hobbes, thus, who believes that any sovereign is better than none at all, Rousseau draws the impression that any sovereign is far from sufficient - and where inequality and injustice arises, this may lead to a greater capacity within human beings for violence.
Rousseau's arguments about human nature and society flow into his theory about the best solution. While Rousseau does argue against the influence of society generally, he realises that a return to the state of nature is not a very viable option. Therefore, because imperfect society is so harmful, Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, argues that a perfect society should be striven for, rather than just accepting the status quo as the preferred option over the state of nature. Other writers, interpreting Rousseau, therefore have argued that he, unlike Hobbes, might agree - or at least, following his line of logic - that revolution is acceptable in the interests of finding a just society. Like Aristotle, Rousseau believes that some regimes are better than others, and that the closer to perfection, the better - though perfection is very difficult to obtain - if not utopian. He uses Geneva as the example of a regime that is well placed to get close to the ideal - a republic, naturally well defended, with little need to expand.
What are the forces that would more perfectly socialise ourselves and end conflict and inequality etc.? and why would we care?
Patrick Riley (1973). "Rousseau as a Theorist of National and International Federalism." Publius, Vol. 3, No. 1., pp. 5-17. Link.
Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.
Table of Contents
Schedule
- Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 13-14, 17-18, 21.
- ‘The modern European state and system of states’, pp. 247-250 in Brown et al.
Friday 5 September- Rousseau, Second Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, part I (scroll down past the dedication and preface, start after the "notice on the notes"). Also available here.
Wednesday 10 SeptemberEssay Topics
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
General considerations
Hobbes
Table of Contents
Background
Hobbes was a prodigious intellect, being admitted to Oxford at age 14 and becoming a classicist. He published the first english translation of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which undoubtedly would have exposed him to an uncomprimising view of nation-states which would have mirrored contempory Europe. But it was Euclid's Elements of Geometry which most impressed Hobbes. The ability of geometry to move with logical precision from postulate to conclusion seemed irresistable, and even induced a brief flirtation with mathematics in which Hobbes clumisily convinced himself that he had squared the circle, an impossible task.
This geometric reasoning was what Hobbes aspired to apply to society. He reasoned that if he could postulate a strong hypothesis about human nature, and follow it ineluctably through to its conclusions, then the resultant system of governance would be logically unassailable. Clearly, he failed in this aim, but the application of the method of theoretical science to society remains a crowning achievement.
Summarised from: Philip Ball, Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another (2004), 7-37.
While Hobbes traveled throughout European countries he came to wonder why people allowed themselves to be ruled. In his most famous work, The Leviathan, published in 1651, he argued that human beings are innately wicked and selfish This is a common misinterpretation of Hobbes -
Source? -
Readings
Summary
• Nature has made men relatively equal in terms of body and mind.
• Every man is also equally convinced that they are wiser than other men
• Men are primarily concerned with their own conservation, and they will subdue those who present a threat to this. The condition of man is war of everyone against everyone.
There are three main causes of quarrel and incline men to war:
- Competition
These men seek their own gain through violence and dominance- Diffidence
These seek safety and their own defense- Glory
These are concerned with their reputationJustice and injustice are not natural parts of the body or the mind; they are used to relate to other men in society.
There are also certain qualities that incline men to peace:
• The fear of death
• The desire for those things which allow a comfortable life
Chapter 14:
The right of nature is the right man has to preserve his own life. A law of nature is a rule by which man is not allowed to do things contrary to these rights of nature.
The first law of nature:
• To seek peace and follow it
Second law:
• Defend ourselves by all means necessary
All men should pursue peace, and use war when necessary to obtain it.
A contract is the transferring of right and can be signed expressively with words or by inference.
Covenants may be completed (performed) or forgiven (dissolved and retransferring of right)
Chapter 17:
It is not natural for men to work together to achieve a common good. If there is no higher power put in place, men will constantly be in a war-like state, relying on their strength to enforce contracts. A commonwealth must be enacted to defend from foreign invasion, injuries from one another, and secure a peaceful life.
The soverign power of control over the commonwealth may be obtained by force (commonwealth of acquisition) or voluntary submission (political commonwealth).
Chapter 18:
A political commonwealth (commonwealth of institution) is formed by a covenant between men subjecting themselves to the will of one (or a select few) man. The purpose of this institution is the peace and defense of the community.
Chapter 21:
A freeman is he who is not restricted from doing those things he is capable of doing. The liberty of a subject lies in those things the sovereign of the commonwealth allows them to do.
A man cannot be forced to confess a crime, as a man is not obliged to accuse himself by any covenant.
Study Questions
- Why is the state of nature a state of war in Hobbes?
The state of nature according to Hobbes is a ruthless state of war.The lack of security in a state of nature is caused by everyone’s equal ability to kill and this leads to a state of war. Hobbes argues that there is no difference between a state of nature and a state of war because in order to survive in a state of nature, every one must be prepared to fight. Humans in Hobbes’ state of war are equally vulnerable and cannot be sure of victory, so they resort to pre-emptive strike attacks. In such a state of war, I am continually under threat and in order to survive, I may kill someone before they have an opportunity to kill me. For the purpose of my argument I am assuming people are equal rational egoists. They act in self-interest for the purpose of self-preservation. This behavior combined with conflicting desires (survival) inevitably leads to fighting and competition because of a lack of trust in one another. This mutual insecurity reinforces Hobbes’ view that life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (ch. 13).
The concept of the ‘State of Nature’, is to be contrasted by the civil state according to Hobbes. The State of Nature is defined as the most basic and pure of human interaction Unclear -
- Is a prisoner's dilemma game a good model for Hobbes' state of nature? What does the prisoner's dilemma tell us (or fail to tell us) about the state of nature and its solution?
Similarities between the traditional prisoners dilemma and the state of nature as Hobbes describes it exist, and as such, the dilemma can be a helpful model to explain Hobbes’ state of nature.At first it is difficult to understand why men, who naturally “seek peace and follow it” (chapter 14) are in this miserable condition of constant war (the "state of nature").
The prisoners dilemma results as follows. In the state of nature, people have an equal ability to to kill: the “weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest” (chapter 13), and “every man has a right to every thing,” including an equal desire (and right) to self defence, even to the point that such a right may impinge upon another's right to live. In instances where the right of one person to live may potentially impinge upon the rights of another, or where no incentives to refrain from doing so exist, the prisoners dilemma results.
A person will attack another first, preemptively, because they cannot trust another person not to attack, and fear that they will attack. There is no incentive not to betray on either side - and thus both are wary of the potential of the other to strike first. Peaceful relationships are therefore very difficult to establish.
The traditional prisoners dilemma is here distinguished - as under a traditional model, repeated interactions between people eventually lead to cooperation and trusting relationships. In Hobbes' state of nature, the stakes of wrongfully trusting are so high (death) that repeated interaction cannot occur - indeed, interaction is unlikely to occur in the first place.. Trust can only be established where a high force (or a sovereign) alters the benefits that would have normally been the outcome of a betrayal. In such a situation, trust can exist because the sovereign wields the power of the collective - and it is in an individual's interest to cooperate - and know moreover that it is in other people's interests to do the same.
- Are Hobbes' assumptions about the state of nature plausible?
It doesn't seem to address the flipside of the prisoners dilemma, in that people attack first before other people attack, but people don't attack first in order not to provoke an attack. If humans have a natural desire for peace then surely they won't desire increasing the chance of an attack Assume there is some error in some people's calculations; will some people attack because they sense a provocation, even if the others don't attack? -You could however say that going up a ladder to fix your leaky roof aids self-preservation (from the rain and cold for many seasons) despite the chance that you may fall; it weighs up two issues of self-preservation and takes the one with the maximum benefit. This could then be seen as analogous to how killing a man for his cows aids self-preservation (milk for many seasons, meat, leather) despite the risk of failing and being killed yourself. I think in terms of the provocation and perception, it comes down to what your response to the possibility of being killed is? If you attack first on the possibility of being killed, you then increase the possibility of being killed in that attack (and having become the aggressor, your perception of provocation becomes reality). If you wait, only that first possibility of being killed exists. This is why people for the most part do not attack first, but rather retaliate, same on an international scale. Then again, I guess you could say that the person who attacked on perceived provocation was only retaliating. Then it's a matter of how you retaliate. You could simply leave or wait rather than confront. Rather than making perceived aggression reality by an aggressive response, you can wait in defense or leave. If nothing happens then it is just perception. I think it's a little more than Kill or be killed, A(ttack)/Not A, and this is how things empirically play out.
You can suspect that your roof leaks (sense a provocation), but you wouldn't act on it unless its dripping on you (attacking you, expressly threatening, etc). Only then do you take that terrible risk of climbing a ladder (attacking/killing). To pre-emptively re-tile your roof is great and industrious and so on, but if it actually didn't need fixing you haven't actually gained anything bar the risks associated with pursuing that action. Rather, you've lost something (money/your arm) that would have been spent on something actually conductive to your self-preservation like food because you acted pre-emptively rather than assessing the situation. I guess this all assumes rationality, which as Hobbes says is different in the state of nature. This however could be seen as saying that in special circumstances 1+1=3. You can't argue with it because you're not in those special circumstances and are using rationality from a state where 1+1=2. If you were in the circumstances where 1+1=3 it'd make sense to you. I don't really like this math analogy, but I think it makes the point.
All these arguments do seem to end up rather circular which is always a bad sign, yet always seems to happen.
If as Hobbes claims the natural desire for peace is our primary motivation (and hence why we would desire a sovereign to invest in), the possession of the state of distrust is then secondary and subordinate (chp14). The fact that we desire a sovereign (peace) surely negates our inherent natural distrust for the most part. If as in a state of nature we all simply attacked pre-emptively it doesn't seem possible that a sovereign could ever emerge. You could take it from that other angle that we never leave the state of nature and that the sovereign is simply a part of it, Hobbes is making distinctions where there are none. If you take Self-Preservation=State of Nature as true, then I think that we are never out of a state of nature. The creation of a sovereign isn't the removal of the state of nature but merely a case of 'I will pursue this option for the time being as it is in my best interests of self-preservation'. As long as it does work you follow it,
Hobbes' assumptions are of course based on the idea that our general suspicions of one another lead to distrust and to kill each other which empirically does not appear to be true. Perhaps though, this is because we are already under a sovereign Precisely Hobbes' point -
The point is not that everyone has these passions; but what if enough people do? Remember, also, that what is rational in the state of nature is not rational in the civil state -
I think the underlying assumptions that complicate the viability of state of nature are as follows:
- All People are rational - If they aren't, they're hardly going to conform to the state of natures theories let alone those of a civil state
- All People act in the same way under the same conditions, have the same desires
- All People are equally killable/capable of being killed. Clearly not. The weakest man probably couldn't strangle the strongest even in his sleep due to his huge neck muscles getting in the way, or stab him with enough force or whatever. Even if it's poison different people will have different reactions, and so on.
In Hobbes' social contract, the sovereign is the only way to have security. For Hobbes, the sovereign is the most intelligent idea made by men to live in society. The creation of the sovereign is the only way to escape from the State of Nature. He will be the only capable authority to inculcate law and order in the society because it is the result of a common agreement. Everyone rational will follow the Sovereign's law because they are afraid of violent death (under Hobbesian analysis). When Hobbes wrote the Leviathan: England did not have a real authority, there was civil war; nobody, in Hobbes perspective, could stop the Parliament. In contrast, France under Louis XIV was an absolute sovereign. No one questioned his authority and for Hobbes that is better than no authority at all. He despises anarchy. What about repeated interactions leading to spontaneous social order? WHy is this not a solution to the state of nature? -
Cooperation between people would not rationally occur because fear and distrust would prevent it. Death (or the fear of it) prevents future cooperation.
- Why is morality impossible in the state of nature?
The state of nature is a state of war - 'every man is against every man'(Chapter XIII). Hobbes believes that there can be no morality in a state of nature because there is ‘no common power’. This positivist approach to law means that without a common power (sovereign) no laws are made, without laws there is no injustice.Sure, but what is the reason that Hobbes gives? Look at what he says about the right to everything in the state of nature-If in the state of nature everybody is equally able to kill anybody else then each person will be looking to gain an advantage over their adversaries, real or imagined. In the act of self-preservation any action is legitimate. For these two reasons there is no such thing as lawful property belonging to an individual, there is only what an individual can retain through force. In the state of nature everyone owns everything. A person will look to build resources so they will be better able to defend themselves or to attack. If everybody is out to do the same thing then all bets are off, anything goes and there is no justice or injustice.
>“…nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” (Chapter XIII)
Compounding the above analysis is Hobbes’ assertion that in a state of nature it is impossible to distinguish between ‘mine and thine’. If there is an inability in a state of nature to separate out individuals possessions from a situation where men only strive to get what they can get, and hold it for as long as they can(Chapter XIII), injustice cannot occur. There was no constructed ‘right’ to it in the first place. This would be different in a system that had a sovereign to dispense justice. How exactly? -
- Is Hobbes' right about the non-existence of morality in the state of nature? What assumptions does he make to argue this claim, and are these assumptions plausible?
Because acting in a moral way in a state-of-nature will not benefit you (you will not get what you want) he believes that humans must take rational actions to achieve what they want Acting in a narrowly rational way in the state of nature will also not get you what you want - this is the prisoner's dilemma aspect of the situation, though the main point is right -- Is Hobbes right about the implication: if states in the international system are in a state of nature, then no state has obligations to other states? All is fair in war?
- Is it likely that individuals in the state of nature would actually renounce their rights given that everyone is a self interested individual? Why / why not? Would such a society be stable?
Prima facie, it appears that the incentives influencing individuals in the state of nature might preclude them from renouncing their rights to a sovereign. Some of the reasons for this might include:Individuals are unlikely to renounce their rights if they feel that they can protect themselves better than a sovereign can. A sovereign has the interests of everyone in mind which may mean they harm one person to protect the interests of another. An individual does not have to worry about looking out for the interests of anyone but him(her)self.
Further, people may be unwilling to submit themselves to tyranny without the sovereign first proving himself. However, the sovereign can not prove himself until he is in a place of leadership with everyone submitting to him. We arrive at a catch 22. The sovereign would never make it into power because all would need to submit for the concept of rule to be successful; I will not submit, therefore, the concept fails.
However, it may also be in an individual's best interests to submit. For example, in a war torn state of nature such as Hobbes describes, in which violence is a part of life, very few freedoms and rights are properly able to be exercised regardless. It could in fact be very much in an individuals self interest to subscribe to the protection of a sovereign promising peace and collective action against intruders - and while they may renounce their rights in a sense, a sovereign promises an environment in which other rights previously denied because of the state of nature can be exercised. If individuals are willing to believe a charismatic would-be-sovereign that they will in fact be better off under the rule of the sovereign (and it is not uncharacteristic of human nature to believe and sign up to something that is 'in their best interests', even if it perhaps is not), it is not inconceivable that they might renounce their rights.
It is fair to say that individuals are unlikely to unilaterally and spontaneously agree to renounce their rights - but if some do, and enjoy that (albeit weakened) protection and sense of community, others are likely to slowly join, particularly through networks of family and friendship. The more people that join, the greater the incentives on skeptics to join also. The greatest protection now lies in the community governed by the sovereign, and the weaker outsiders become relative to that community. It becomes in the outsiders best interests, as the party left vulnerable, to become part of the wider, more centrally focussed group.
- Is Hobbes' statement that sovereigns exist in a state of nature still applicable to 21st century society?
Not completely. If the modern world were one in which no one power were superior to another, chaos could ensue. States could be viewed as people equally able to kill each other. In contrast to the situation envisaged by Hobbes of equality, States differ significantly in military ability i.e ability to kill. If states are analogous to people and given the limited amount of supreme authority in the international sphere, Hobbesian theory would predict constant war Remember, though, war is not actual battle, but a disposition thereto - see chapter 13 -The concept of comity of nations also enables harmonious (although not always) relations, often without a greater presidency to bind both parties to agreements etc.Unclear - how does this get over the Hobbesian security dilemma? -
- Does Christianity (of the kind Erasmus preached) equal a sort of sovereign since norms of conduct are set out?
While Christianity in many ways does attempt to fulfill the functions of a sovereign in terms of maintaining set behaviour, religion in and of itself cannot be as effective as a sovereign in mitigating conflict: One of the main strengths Hobbes notes of a sovereign (assuming that we accept his theory) is the ability to gather together the collective in order to punish bad conduct. The effectiveness of a religion as a sovereign partially depends on the mechanisms of that religion to punish bad conduct.- Where a religion has no control mechanism to ensure behaviour is regulated, the conduct of a person is therefore regulated only by conscience. The only being to whom a potential offender is accountable is God, and their decision to act or refrain from acting is limited only by the extent to which they believe in afterlife (or karma-type) retribution. While this may be effective for some, for many it is not as human immediate retribution is a more effective deterrent. It is moreover very difficult to find a unified interpretation of religion. This is illustrated well by the differences in the interpretation of Christianity seen between Erasmus and Aquinas. Where Erasmus advocated an absolute ban on conflict - often even in self defence, Aquinas favoured an interpretation that appeared to allow conflict in some instances. Even those who genuinely fear afterlife retribution may not believe that such retribution will come because the circumstances under which they engage in conflict are morally just, or allowable under a different interpretation of Christian ethic.
If all people believed in a unified Erasmian Christianity, it may have the same impact (or better) as might a sovereign under Hobbes' theory at mitigating conflict, but it is a utopian theory and in some ways would make the question a truism. Because it is not a reality, Christianity under the status quo (even the status quo in Erasmus or Hobbes' time) did not, and does not equal a sovereign under Hobbes' rationalisation.
- In a society where the extreme majority of people believe in a single religion, it is arguable that immediate retribution is garnered through societal norms and pressures. Failure to adhere might result in penalties such as societal exclusion - and as such could be a more effective method of accountability. However, this relies on unified beliefs, high uptake, close knit, internalised communities and that the religion preached strict moral and behavioural regulation. It is unclear whether such society would be sustainable in the long term, and it is unclear whether community pressures would be as effective in maintaining behaviour as individual retribution. Societal pressures to adhere to generally common morals exist in many communities but do not preclude those who wish to contravene. Moreover, if one subscribes to Hobbes' portrayal of human nature, outliers might tend to react preemptively in fear of their own safety - as in such a community, prejudice against outsiders would generally tend to be fairly extreme, and outliers might well fear for their own safety.
- Where the church acted as a sovereign in terms of using the collective to enforce physical retribution of those who contravene, they then would literally equal a sort of sovereign - Hobbes would argue that it does not matter if the leader of a religious faction acted as a sovereign in this sense, they still possess the qualities of a sovereign and the benefits that therefore flow. The uptake of the religion would become immaterial if the physical retribution extended beyond believers, as long as the religion was able to effectively control a significant portion of the collective to enforce conduct. However, this type of society falls outside the scope of this question - as Christianity itself is not acting as a sovereign - humans believing in Christianity are.
- Can it be argued that Hobbes is always a realist, or are there aspects of his argument that go against typical realism?
Hobbes can be justified as a realist because he always thinks about rationality before doing something in the political or social sphere. Thinking rationally unclear - is this characteristic of realism? What is being said here? -- How does Hobbes' position on the law of nature differ from ancient and medieval positions?
As Hobbes describes in chapter 14 the fundamental law of nature for men is "to seek peace and follow it". But in the state of nature, in the "condition of war of every one against every one" the fundamental law of nature not 'applicable'. In chapter 17 Hobbes again says that the laws of nature (justice, mercy, modesty...) "are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like" and therefore argue for a strong covenant to ensure security. Therefore, according to Hobbes a 'peaceful' society has to be constructed with a strong covenant and a strong sovereign who ensure the implication of the covenant. In Ancient and Medieval thoughts society grows 'naturally', it is the law of nature, that men cooperate in their individual interest and form a society.- How does Hobbes differentiate between humans and animals if our natural passions are a sine qua non of both?
- To rebel against a sovereign is against the many covenants agreed upon by the public, can a tyrant be deposed (Chpt. XVIII)?
A tyrant cannot be deposed:If people have already "instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgements of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission."
Having renounced their rights to the sovereign, they cannot, therefore, without his leave, depose him and "return to the confusion of a disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another the" because "they are bound." If they do so, they " take from him that which is his own", which is unjust, and moreover, they break their covenant to that sovereign, which is also unjust. Hobbes does not sympathise with those caught attempting to commit such treasons, labelling the such a person "the author of his own punishment."
One cannot even break with a sovereign in the name of God (ie, swearing loyalty to God, not the sovereign), as Hobbes argues that no covenant can exist with God himself, only with God's representative on earth - the sovereign. Hobbes is scathing of those who use such an argument: "This pretence of covenant with God is so evident a lie, even in the pretenders' own consciences, that it is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile and unmanly disposition."
A man cannot depose a tyrant therefore, nor can he free himself from a tyrants rule: " none of his subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection." This is because when a sovereign makes a covenant with the people, he makes it with them all - and the rules must therefore apply to all people: "Because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest... And whether he be of the congregation or not, and whether his consent be asked or not, he must either submit to their decrees or be left in the condition of war he was in before; wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever."
Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors.Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
- Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.- Hampton, Jean (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.- Gauthier, David (1999). Hobbes's Social Contract. Originally appeared in Nous 22 (1988), pp. 71-82. Reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), pp. 59-71. Link.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.Rousseau
Table of Contents
Background
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712, was essentially self-taught, never having gone to school for a single day he gained his knowledge through books. His political theory went on to influence the American Founding Fathers and the French revolutionaries. One of his most well-known theories, in the First Discourse, was that progress led humanity astray from primitive simplicity. He felt that it was society itself that made human beings selfish and wicked, believing instead in the natural goodness of man. Essentially, society is not the solution to the problems we have but it is the problem. Much of his work is said to have contradictions in it, for example he believed in social equality but endorsed a view of female subservience. (Damrosc, Rousseau: Restless Genius 2005)
Readings
Summary
• The state is not a physical entity, but rather a moral and spiritual creation
• States are equal and don’t have different rights based on size or power.
• The only legitimate war is that of self-defence. This includes not only physical interests, but also national honour.
• Proofs of ill will between states are breaches of international law to a particular states advantage.
• A war between two powers is a settled intention on both sides to destroy the enemy State. A legitimate war must be declared.
• To make war upon a sovereign power is to attack the social convention and all that is involved in it.
• War is an outrage to humanity
Study Questions
First off, it seems that Hobbes justifies tyranny while Rousseau opposes it Yes, but this is not one of Rousseau's objections to Hobbes' argument -
Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes’ notion of humans in the state of nature as being “naturally wicked”. He writes in the First Part of his Discourse on Inequality: “Above all, let us not conclude, with Hobbes, that because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue…"
Rousseau thinks that men are neither good nor bad, but generally peaceful (other than in Hobbes) because they have “compassion” (“pitié”) and wouldn’t hurt another human as they have “an innate repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature suffer”.
According to Rousseau humans don’t act rationally in the state of nature, which is also different from Hobbes’ perspective. This is not quite right. It's not that human don't act rationally - that sounds like humans act stupidly. -
Rousseau argues that the “people being subject the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it". Here Rousseau states that the people are in fact capable and deserving of self-rule, and argues that man is not naturally adversarial ?-
Some of Rousseau's key objections to HObbes' arguments are missing form this account. -
- What are the roots of conflict for Rousseau?
According to Rousseau, conflict arises with the formation of a civil state Not quite right - yes, conflict is prevalent with the civil state but it arises a little before -Rousseau believed that the transition from the State of Nature to the political state stemmed from a shift in humans' behaviour. The rationality develops at the expense of independence Explain -
- Why does Rousseau think interdependence is bad? Is he right?
Rousseau believes that interdependence is the root of inequality, injustice and the usurpation of society by the rich in accordance of their interests; which are considered bad. With the emergence of interdependent societal groups, some people are obliged to work more than others for the same wage - the example of the smith vs the peasant is used 'The farmer had a greater need for iron or the iron-worker for wheat.'Interdependence also induced amour propre as man now compared his inequality relative to others and sought to increase his own status/possessions. The rich/’most miserable’ now set their sights on the ‘goods of others’ a view that led to conflict within and between societies and the formation of laws proposed by the rich. These laws were disguised as protection for the poor against other united societies yet actually enshrined the protection of property, where the rich had more interest in keeping (the poor only liberty). Such laws oppressed the weak and consolidated the strength of the newly powerful. In consequence, the ‘law of property and inequality’ were established as right and ‘natural liberty’ destroyed.
- Are there any good things about interdependence, for Rousseau? Can its bad effects be remedied?
- 'The body politic, in so far as it is only a moral being, is merely a thing of reason.' (Brown 422) Explain
- What does Rousseau think is the normal state of international relations? Why?
I will begin with distinguishing the normal state and the natural state. The normal state is defined by the current existence of our state. The natural state will be the state in which we begun. Moving away for the natural state, humans live in a state of turmoil and conflict. This conflict is due to our interdependence; society has caused us to unify. Due to this unification, conflict arises. In our natural state, humans would be completely independent and free of conflict. It is a progression to the current state that has produced dependence and conflict. International relationship is just another step in reducing independence. However, Rousseau believes there are benefits to pursuing international relationships. Your relations with surrounding countries lead to trade; trade leads to specialization and more dependence. International relations develop our rationality at the sacrifice of independence; Rousseau believes this dependence leads to further conflict and death. This is a bit vague and lacking reference to Rousseau's State of War, where he actually explains this. Why is there conflict in international relations? -Rousseau's conception of human nature differs in many ways from Hobbes. Though they both tend to agree that human beings value their lives and wish to avoid death, Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes that this value naturally manifests itself in a natural disposition to conflict. According to Rousseau, while they may be reactive in the sense that they will defend against imminent or immediate danger, human beings are not naturally animals of conflict. Most lack the ability to easily kill other men, and as such are unlikely to be the selfish and dangerous, calculative pre-emptors Hobbes portrays in most instances. The exceptions to the rule are just that - exceptions - and not destructive to the theory as a whole:
Rousseau in some ways places the blame for the conflict that has, in reality occurred, on the solution Hobbes has suggested. He argues that society generally is what leads to the ability of man to engage in conflict, for several reasons. First, it encourages men to lose their aversion to killing other men - partially by creating 'us and them' feeling between members of different societies, and training (particularly in army situations?) men to fight for their own society against another. Even if Hobbes were right that a sovereign (in essence, the representative of a society) mitigates internal conflict, it externalises conflict and does nothing to mitigate that.
It further impedes on human beings' natural independence - forcing them to rely on others. Rousseau argues that interdependence generally means dependence due to the structure of society, contrary to people's natural wish for independence. Land ownership in many ways has led to this dependence - creating the boundary between the rich and the poor:
The rich - with the most to lose - have structured society in their own interests to protect these rights. Rousseau argues that the status quo in many places is therefore unequal and unjust, because it is biased in favour of the rich, and the inequalities that exist within society - (e.g. rich/poor) lead to dependence - as the poor depend on the rich to survive, and in many way the rich also depend on the poor to uphold their way of life. Because it is imperfect, it may mitigate conflict in the short term, but eventually tends to degenerate.
In situations where a 'sovereign' (representation of the people) is corrupt/founded on justice/allows injustice, this independence is further compromised - and humans naturally react against oppression of freedoms. Unlike Hobbes, thus, who believes that any sovereign is better than none at all, Rousseau draws the impression that any sovereign is far from sufficient - and where inequality and injustice arises, this may lead to a greater capacity within human beings for violence.
Rousseau's arguments about human nature and society flow into his theory about the best solution. While Rousseau does argue against the influence of society generally, he realises that a return to the state of nature is not a very viable option. Therefore, because imperfect society is so harmful, Rousseau, unlike Hobbes, argues that a perfect society should be striven for, rather than just accepting the status quo as the preferred option over the state of nature. Other writers, interpreting Rousseau, therefore have argued that he, unlike Hobbes, might agree - or at least, following his line of logic - that revolution is acceptable in the interests of finding a just society. Like Aristotle, Rousseau believes that some regimes are better than others, and that the closer to perfection, the better - though perfection is very difficult to obtain - if not utopian. He uses Geneva as the example of a regime that is well placed to get close to the ideal - a republic, naturally well defended, with little need to expand.
What are the forces that would more perfectly socialise ourselves and end conflict and inequality etc.? and why would we care?
Lecture Notes
External Resources
- Link, This is an article in the " Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" on Rousseau written by James J. Delaney from the Niagara University.
I found this article very helpful to read general information on Rousseau or specific explanations to his Discourse on Origin of Inequality.Selected Bibliography
- Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.Other thinkers